NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Idameneo (No.123) v Robalino [2009] NSWSC 969
HEARING DATE(S) : 11/8/09, 12/08/09, 13/08/09
JUDGMENT DATE : 23 September 2009
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : McDougall J at 1
DECISION : See paragraphs [145] to [146] of the judgment.
CATCHWORDS : CONTRACTS – variation – whether contract varied to provide for sale of home practice – breach – whether defendant's conduct of home medical practice in breach of contract – whether within scope of contractual exception – whether sufficiently serious breach of a non essential term to allow termination – termination – whether contract validly terminated – plaintiff able to rely on reason for termination other than that given to defendant at the time of termination.
LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995 Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW)
CATEGORY : Principal judgment
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) Exch 341 Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Limited (2007) 233 CLR 115 CASES CITED : Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia Ltd (1931) 45 CLR 359 Sunbird Plaza Pty Ltd v Maloney (1988) 166 CLR 245
TEXTS CITED : Australian Oxford Dictionary
PARTIES : Idameneo (No.123) Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Doctor Carlos Robalino (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 4450/04
COUNSEL : R L Harper SC (Plaintiff) J A Jobson (Defendant)
SOLICITORS : Massey Bailey (Plaintiff) Brock Partners (Defendant)
- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate